The problems of employment, dealing with the poor, and those wanting to promote
their own leadership positions is a recurring theme in history. The following selection
taken from the Britannica, may serve as an illustrative example because of the
social-situational repetitions being played out within present contexts, and will be
seen by some readers as being directly analogous:

The problem of labour in the New World

One of the greatest problems faced by settlers in the New World, particularly
in the southern colonies, was the shortage of labour. Within a few decades after
the settlement of Jamestown, planters had established indentured servitude as the
main form of labour. Under this system, young men (and some women) worked for masters,
to whom they were indebted for their transportation, normally for a period of four
to seven years. They were paid no wages, received only minimal upkeep, and often
were treated brutally.

By the mid-17th century a wealthy few had encumbered virtually all lands not
under Indian control and were attempting to work these lands using indentured servants.
The working poor and those eventually freed from servitude had little on which to
survive, and their dissatisfaction with the iniquities of colonial society led to
riots and numerous threats of revolt. After 1619 this group of poor servants included
many Africans and their descendants, some of whom had experience in the Spanish
and Portuguese colonies, where slave labour was widely used.

The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of
considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European
servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have
shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate
that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude.
They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.
Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills
were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and
commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free
Africans inter-married, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination.
Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; blacks and whites
worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran
away together. Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the
policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon's Rebellion
[1676] were blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans
and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems
to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality
or inferiority.

Toward the end of the 17th century, labour from England began to diminish, and
the colonies were faced with two major dilemmas. One was how to maintain control
over the restless poor and the freedmen who seemed intent on the violent overthrow
of the colony's leaders. There had been several incidents that threatened the
leadership of the fragile colonies. The aforementioned rebellion led by Nathaniel
Bacon in Virginia was a high point in the caustic relations between the planters
and leaders of the colony and the impoverished workers. Although that rebellion
failed, discontent continued to be expressed in riots, destruction of property,
and other forms of social violence.

The second dilemma was how to obtain a controllable labour force as cheaply as
possible. Tobacco was the chief source of wealth, and its production was labour-intensive.
The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided
the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans
into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans,
the most vulnerable members of the population.

The eager attempts of Black Leaders to generate a following to promote a cause
they know exceeds the grasp of those who betray their genuine longing for redemption
of the scars weathered by the soul of the Black Community... and their honest desires
to address sociological issues within the box of the current governing structure,
is like being a perceived madman beating their head against a padded wall inside
a regulated room that has originated the problem of an expressly desired, but inadequately
defined freedom, needed liberty, and pursuit of happiness. As Einstein is mentioned
to have quoted (with variations) the idea that we can not solve problems by using
the same mind which created them; it acts as a precedent for us to reflectively
recognize a new path of consideration to free us from those conservatives whose
ideas foster a peripatetic (back and forth) sojourn [like a ball in a sports contest],
instead of pursuing the "road not taken" without having to look back at a past with
a self-defeating sentimentality.

The assigned interest in a "Tea Party" styled governing restoration articulates
an approach centered around some assumed Constitution-engendered reformative inclination
that has been lost because of an over-bearing government wrought by being too big.
It rests on a perspective which wants to generate an accommodation to the ideal of
an early Republicanism which promoted the idea that a limited government would serve
the people, as a nation, in the best way. However, it is this truncated formula of
governance defined as a democracy, which entitles a few to determine the course for
the many, even though these few are generally elected in an atmosphere of the public
having to choose between the lesser of two evils... but are in any case, not
necessarily the best and the brightest... but electoral ballots do not provide the
people with the selective option of choosing "none of the above", in order to be
provided with a selection of better candidates. The Tea Party's formula of democracy
is in fact a shallow representation of a possible depth awaiting to be explored in
order to invigorate the imagination of the public into a new Renaissance of purpose,
performance and possibility— as a promise to itself— by way of adopting
a New Government... a Cenocracy.

In such a depth of examination, it is of need to address the long-standing issue
of whether a Democracy is best if run by a collective -or- singular Majority or a
collective -or- singular Minority voice. To such an end, let us provide a Britannica
excerpt which takes up this discussion (with brief interejected comments in blue)...
and please keep in mind the era in which the ideas were framed, and that the "Fore-Fathers"
of the country's government are not gods whose ideas have to be worshipped:

Majority rule, minority rights, majority tyranny

The fear of “majority tyranny” was a common theme in the 17th century and later,
even among those who were sympathetic to democracy. Given the opportunity, it was
argued, a majority would surely trample on the fundamental rights of minorities.
Property rights were perceived as particularly vulnerable, since presumably any
majority of citizens with little or no property would be tempted to infringe the
rights of the propertied minority. Such concerns were shared by Madison and other
delegates at the Convention and strongly influenced the document they created.

(We don't actually ever "own" property... So called "Ownership"
is a long-term leasing program... that acts as an extended formula of Socialism
or Communism.)

Here too, however, Madison's views changed after reflection on and observation
of the emerging American democracy. In a letter of 1833, he wrote, “[E]very friend
to Republican government ought to raise his voice against the sweeping denunciation
of majority governments as the most tyrannical and intolerable of all governments....
[N]o government of human device and human administration can be perfect; ... the
abuses of all other governments have led to the preference of republican government
as the best of all governments, because the least imperfect; [and] the vital principle
of republican governments is the lex majoris partis, the will of the majority.”

(Again, this is an example of the "logic" for accepting the lesser of two... or more evils.)

The fear of factions was eased and finally abandoned after leaders in various
democratic countries realized that they could create numerous barriers to unrestrained
majority rule, none of which would be clearly inconsistent with basic democratic
principles.

(The "not inconsistant with" perception used as an
argument against providing Blacks their Rights equal to all others (such as Whites),
is what caused Blacks to have to strive for more and more clearer definitions of
rights that were being denied them. From the 13th, to 14th, to 15th Admendments,
and then again by way of a Civil Rights Act... and now the need for a New Government
to be formulated and adopted.

Thus, they could incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution
(see the English Bill of Rights and the United States Bill of Rights); require a
supermajority of votes—such as two-thirds or three-fourths—for constitutional
amendments and other important kinds of legislation; divide the executive, legislative,
and judicial powers of government into separate branches (see separation of powers);
give an independent judiciary the power to declare laws or policies unconstitutional
and hence without force of law; adopt constitutional guarantees of significant
autonomy for states, provinces, or regions (see federalism); provide by statute
for the decentralization of government to territorial groups such as towns, counties,
and cities; or adopt a system of proportional representation, under which the
proportion of legislative seats awarded to a party is roughly the same as the
proportion of votes cast for the party or its candidates. In such a multiparty
system, cabinets are composed of representatives drawn from two or more parties,
thus ensuring that minority interests retain a significant voice in government.

However, the problem with using various formulas of "separation"
in and between government entities, is that the people themselves become excluded
from having even a minority voice of opinion with respect to discussing and then
voting on any and all issues the public deems pertinent. The collective Will of The
People is being as a minority in the days of yore by having denied to them a means
of direct government participation with its own "Peoples Legislative Branch" to act
as a purposive addition to the Checks -and- Balances formula. The whole of the public
is in fact being treated as a minority that has not significant voice in government,
because of the obstructiveness the current model of governance has in permitting the
people to have the government they see fit to collectively decide on by a Constitutionally
guaranteed model of Referendum not yet in practice anywhere... the likes of which
can be fully explicated in a Cenocratic film.

Although political theorists continue to disagree about the best means to effect
majority rule in democratic systems, it seems evident that majorities cannot
legitimately abridge the fundamental rights of citizens. Nor should minorities ever
be entitled to prevent the enforcement of laws and policies designed to protect
these fundamental rights. In short, because democracy is not only a political system
of “rule by the people” but necessarily also a system of rights, a government that
infringes these rights is to that extent undemocratic.

The problem with a "fundamental rights" definition is that
it is is often elaborated as having the same thing everyone else does... and yet
even the most basic of needs in our present age are not being addressed for everyone.
For example, as noted elsewhere herein, when the people pay for basic entitlements
that military personnel receive, and yet the people themselves are denied such...
such a simple fundamental right of equality is not practiced. When the basic rights
of the public are infringed on by such a government practice, dealing with the
question of majority and minority dominance is placed into a role of absurdity
until the question of fundamental rights are actually resolved and agreed on by
the whole of the public... and not by some ridiculous nonsense of vicarious
"Representation"... particularly when no such representation actually takes place.

Agreeably, the movie did point out that Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP
are viewed by members in the Black Community as providing a disservice because they
act as an oppressive leadership which binds the mentality of blacks to an antiquated
age of mental disposition so as to perpetuate themselves in some assumed leadership
role. In other words, their efforts are directed more towards self-preservation
than improving conditions for Blacks. Talk is cheap and is cheapened more-so by
not accomplishing anything unless it serves their own interests... like charities
which start out doing a good deed, only to become institutions of self-representation
because they are systems of fund generation. Charity is big business, just as is
war and social strife being used by economic opportunists. While some Blacks are
just discovering the hypocrisy of Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP, it is a perspective
already having been recognized by many non-blacks. Being part of the Black Community
has its down-side because like so many efforts of total immersion, objectivity is
often obscured by subjectivity. Whereas the nonsense practiced by whites is often
readily seen by non-whites, so too is the nonsense exhibited by non-whites seen
fairly easy by Whites. It's too bad all of humanity is not able to readily grasp its
collectively practiced nonsense to create a better global society.

An example of reinventing oneself for the conditions of the present age, is to
use the title of "Inter-national Association for the Advancement of All People"
(IAAAP) so as not to perpetuate antiquated ideas attached to the perceptions which
had developed the "NAACP" label by adopting the
word "colored" as an embraced distinction to not be ashamed of, though it had been
wielded as a notation of disparagement by non-blacks in a former age. Continued
usage of the word "colored" is an orientation of a former racist consciousness being
kept alive and defined by antiquated standards of individualized group comparisons...
leaving less room for other distinctions of a more profitable character to be viewed.
If so-called "colored" people are not willing to increase their perceptual view of
the social landscape, their territorial mental boundary becomes relegated to those
sharing a very limited world-view acknowledgment of a populace that can not realistically
live within the confines of so small an area. Fortunately, not all Black and non-black
peoples are this near-sighted, cross-eyed or cataracted. In addition, the usage of
an image where scales are held in place by a book entitled "NAACP (founded 1909)"
describes a balancing act determined by an ego-centrically defined book contents. It
is as erroneous a balance as the "scales of justice" held in place by a blind-folded
female holding a sword. Both metaphorized symbolisms are duplicitous and the tell-tale
signs of a socially disabling mental illness that is pervasive with many in the
human community.

Along with the above two images can be included the Jessie Jackson-derived
"Rainbow Push" Organization's
logo, which displays yet another formula of the "colored" idea, and leads some observers
to suspect that there is a recurring obsession of some Blacks' preoccupation with
themselves... with their "colored" kind; particularly when the so-called "color"
variations are singularly limited in appearance at any rally, "convention" or
get-together. As such, if the Black community actually came face to face with
different colored humans (or sentient extra-terrestrial humanoids), they would be
scared out of their wits and forced to re-think the ignorance they now display—
but have had no incentive to look beyond their own "colored" spectrum. Imagine if
a crystal prism only presented us with the spectrum of "color" seen through the eyes
of these two organizations! Needless to say... but American Blacks might find a
dominant society of green, or blue or purple people to be just as anti-"colored"
as the dominant White society is... at least from their practiced perspective. The
true ideological "color" of both the NAACP and the Rainbow Push, is not a very pretty
one... of which many viewers concur.

The Runaway Slave Movie, aligned with some purposeful attempt to fuse Black self-
interests with a socially exhibited political ideology in a gesture of enhancing
self (black)-promotion by way of a symbiotic exercise; is little different than the
stark evidence presented by the homosexual community with its self-absorptions,
self-indulgences, self-interests, and other self-loving masturbatory intellectualisms...
with its diminished inclinations towards helping the whole of the species, unless it is
defined from some ego-centric vantage point of self-relativity of expected self-preferential
"equality" treatment... of being able to exert their ideology as the mythology to be
observed and honored in this day and age. In this line of thinking, the theory...
as some claim is based on interpretations from personal experiences; not unlike
the homosexual community using the word "homophobic" as an alternative weapon or
shield with a mirrored surface when set against a defined snake-haired non-homosexual
community— many Blacks like to use the negative stereotyping of their "Blackness"
to badger, harasses, intimidate, cajole and brow beat their way to some assumed
success, sex or simply making others be submissive to their self-absorptions. It
is a type of self-love found in the absorptions of racial, gender and ethnic
self-absorptions.

This "self-absorption" is found equally prevalent amongst those who view themselves,
"their kind" as a chosen people of God. Feelings of inadequacy prompted by diminished
self-esteem very often seeks out some sort of compensatory avenue of over-valuation.
If one defines commonality as mediocrity and that it does not serve a longing for
recognition because one feels stifled by routinization and expected compliant acceptance;
an over-indulgence of one or another kind may take place as a means of attempting
to force a wedge, a break, a change of direction... which very often relies on some
oppositional stance regularly based on a dichotomy... or doing something opposite
to a standard purview... such as homosexual activity, or pitting oneself against a
perceived opposite such as white/black, democrat/republican, tea-totaller/alcoholism,
law abiding/criminal, etc... Different people employ different logic, and a
labeled "community" can be attributed with a singular perspective even if most
members of a group are highly independent in their thinking. Let us look at three
variations of logic involving religion, homosexuals and Blacks... keeping in mind
these are general expressions though some readers may find them particularly
insightful to their own feelings:

While some readers may agree with the above portrayals as representing some
unassailable truth, others may be offended. And let us not overlook that any
number of professions and occupations could likewise be included to define some
perceived instance of hypocrisy for a given person in a given situation. Other
readers will simply be amused and look upon them as cartoon strips which often
reveal some measure of validity, but do not readily produce a large following
of like-mindedness to create a revolt of condemnation... nor intent to correct
social circumstances so that such events do not take place... instead of trying
to force the public to see things in only one way by way of imposing how events
are to be subjectively interpreted simply because a given community doesn't want
its hypocrisies revealed... and recognition, much less articulation, must be
oppressed at any cost.

Some people do not like to give any credit whatsoever to any Blacks, Homosexuals/Lesbians,
or religious adherents... because in so doing this may then be perceived as an
acceptance of a life style, culture or philosophy that, for the most part, is
disagreed with... even if one's animosities are without actual merit. Very often,
as when a citizenry speaks negatively about authority without being specific in order
to avoid being accused of discrediting those or that which practiced a perceived
wrong or general hypocrisy, the word "they" is employed. By using "they" or "them"
or "it" in one's finger pointing, personalization with affection can be excluded
in order to carry out acts which will not discomfort one's consciousness. Likewise,
Calling a person a beast or animal permits one to exercise whatever cruelty and
non-civility they can muster forth in removing a perceived threat. Yet, all in all,
the cycle of differing hatreds continues and nothing is resolved.

From one century to the next we witness one culture talking disparagingly about
another, whether or not relevant points are brought forth... and that one may speak
of dreams, hopes and aspirations we can all identify with from our own vantage point...
yet, the underlying conditions which help to promote the cyclic nature of the
phenomena is not comprehensively addressed with any sincere intent or attempt to
make corrective changes. Again, talk is cheap and cheapened by our insistence of
bringing our points of observation to be discussed, only to have them discussed
with the intent of dismissiveness because they are intended to resolve issues and
not perpetuate dead-ended conversations which continue decade after decade, after
decade by those using the same topics to posture their ego for the sake of some
social leadership position designed by government statues to keep the same discussions
going because it is self-serving. Resolving issues means to dispense with a form
of governance that is out of step with the reality of human needs in an evolving
age that the public is growing out of. So many Blacks, like so many Whites, Native
Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians, don't want to participate in
something that is focused on solving recurring human issues; they want simply to
be in a lucrative position that enables them to participate in the maintenance of
things as they are in order to be provided position-specific entitlements that few
others have.

The Runaway Slave Movie, although providing insights into negative aspects of
a practiced White dominant government-directed culture by way of an objectivity
that escapes many non-blacks, it also shows us that the Black Community is alive
and well in its interests of self-promotion portrayed with the illusion that their
perspective is better for the Nation... though "Nation" is interpretively defined
as the "Black Nation". With such an orientation, the perception of an underlying
message in the movie suggests that America would be better off if all positions
of employment... particularly leadership and authoritative roles that are presently
occupied by non-Blacks, were substituted with Blacks... because we are all to assume
that Blacks, if given the same advantages as non-blacks, would exhibit a far greater
intelligence, wisdom, and insight... resulting in a world without the degree, depth
and dimensional array of social problems that now plague humanity because it persists
in holding onto antiquated governing practices.

The Tea Party wrongly interprets the idealization of an enhanced society by
choosing an agenda which reeks of insecurity against allowing the Will of The People
to collectively debate and decide on policies, regulations, and laws. Instead, it
describes social problems as symptoms of a disease originating from the effects
of a burdensome BIG GOVERNMENT... though this label is
rarely explicitly defined. The Tea Party does not appreciate that a Democracy, by
its very nature (if defined by the dictum "Of, By, For All The People"), is a HUGE
GOVERNMENT because all of us are given the avowed, Constitutionally provided legal
means to collectively direct the course of our own history as a Nation. As it
stands, the Tea Party wants to preserve the right of a Few to dictate terms to the
Many, by enforcing guarantees of limited citizenship participation through adopted
principles which conserve a Constitution that prevents the collective Will of The
People from directing the course of their own choosing; by diverting from a path
of recurring economic disparity and desperation that the governing elite have
chosen to follow— because of some gold-glittering mirage in the sands of a
desolate governing one-eyed economic philosophy... steeped in the superstitions of
a practicality that is anti-thetical to a desired cultural flourishing that can be
embraced by all of humanity... but are fruits whose foliage is too vigorously trimmed
by current governing systems controlled by self-centered interests.

Though it is without question that the government can and does do many wonderful
things for millions of people, the fact remains that its current formula is not up
to the task of dealing with issues that cause millions to suffer needlessly. It is
particularly pathetic that the people are forced to pay for the entitlements of
government workers that the public themselves can not share in... like the fruits
of labor produced by those in the days leading up to the French Revolution; because
the people were expected to maintain the lavish entitlements of the aristocracy
that they themselves could not enjoy, since such entitlements were used as part of
the definition of one's so-called "Betters".